About your Search

20130201
20130228
STATION
CSPAN2 6
MSNBC 6
MSNBCW 6
KNTV (NBC) 2
WRC 2
CSPAN 1
WBAL (NBC) 1
LANGUAGE
English 28
Search Results 0 to 27 of about 28 (some duplicates have been removed)
, former republican senator chuck hagel, came under fire from members of his own party during a very contentious confirmation hearing. >> name one person in your opinion who's intimidated by the israeli lobby in the united states senate. >> are we right or wrong? that's a pretty straightforward question. >> senator hagel, please answer the question i asked. today, do you think unilateral sanctions would be a bad idea? >> all this raising questions about how effective chuck hagel will be if confirmed as secretary of defense. earlier this weekend, i sat down for a rare joint interview with the top military leadership the outgoing secretary f defense leon panetta and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff general martin dempsey. >>> secretary panetta, welcome back to "meet the press." general dempsey, welcome. let me start with the man that is poised to take your place. he underwent on thursday a pretty tough round of questioning. he seemed to struggle with a lot of the answers. of course this is chuck hagel, the former republican senator from nebraska. look at some of his answers. >
this is chuck hagel, the former republican senator from nebraska. look at some of his answers. >> i should have used another term, and i'm sorry. i would like to go back and change the words and the meaning. the bigger point is, what i was saying, i think -- what i meant to say, should have said, is recognizable. it's been recognized, is recognized. well, i said it. and i don't remember the context or when i said it. well, i said what i said. i said many, many things over many years. that's what i should have said. and thank you. >> secretary panetta, many of those answers did not satisfy a lot of republicans. senator roy blunt is going to vote no. he said his answers were too inconsistent particularly related to iran and israel. marco rubio said i've been deeply concerned about his plef previous comments. john barrasso, he appeared weak and wobbly. are you concerned? >> well, everyone you quoted is a republican, and it's pretty obvious that the political knives were out for chuck hagel. >> and you think that was totally personal, partisan? >> well, what disappointed me is they talked a lot abo
we have 68,000 young men and women serving there. >> are you confident of chuck hagel? have you spent time with him? you guys have to have a partnership. secretary of defense, chairman of the joint chiefs of staffs, whether you like each other or are not, are you confident you can have a good relationship with him? >> i have spent time with senator hagel, including when he was teaching over at georgetown, on strategic issues. and in helping prepare him for this confirmation hearings, we had several opportunities to talk about strategy. and i found him well prepared and very thoughtful about it. >> were his answers to you better than the answers you saw there? >> i'm not going to grade his homework. but in my conversations, he was well prepared, articulate, concise. >> and you're confident he can do the job? >> i'm not going to speak about confidence. he could be my boss. when is the last time you saw a subordinate discuss the confidence in his boss? my personal contacts with him have been very positive. if he's confirmed, i look forward to working with him. >> senator lindsey graham s
kerry as well as senator chuck hagel, both served honorably in vietnam and in combat while dick cheney made sure that he got five different deferments to avoid fighting a war, vietnam, that he loved supporting. so let's take a look at the cheney legacy and see how it stacks up to the president's so-called second rate team. we've got an expert, howard fineman is editorial director of the "huffington post," and joan walsh is editor-at-large of salon. both are msnbc political analysts. dick cheney says the president's national security team is second rate. that's rich coming from the man who did more than anyone to sell the u.s. on a completely unnecessary war. take a look. >> we know with absolute certainty he is enriching uranium. we believe he has reconstituted nuclear weapons. i agree we will be greeted as liberators. we learn there was a relationship between iraq and al qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s, that it involved training, for example, on bw and cw, that al qaeda sent personnel to baghdad to get trained on the systems. it provided the iraqis pro
chuck hagel who has been nominated to be secretary of defense has been proposing. he has said so many things against us even as a nation being nuclear armed and ready, that it is very disturbing to people all across the country. bill: if you think that, do you think we've lost the argument with iran over its nuclear program? is that time passed? >> well, i think that the time has passed. they now view it as, us versus them. sanctions have worked to lower the value of their currency. sanctions have had an impact on people through throughout the country of iran. but i don't believe they have had the impact that has been desired against the iranian government. bill: why are we sitting down and talking again? what's the expectation from something like this? >> i think very little would be expected. i would expect the iranians to have their arms folded in front of their chest and sitting there, perhaps, listening, but basically they're continuing to run out the clock. they may even talk a little bit about wanting to negotiate but they have no interest in, my opinion, bill, in negotiating o
of nominations, john kerry at state, chuck hagel at defense and john brennan for cia, i remember being on the show and saying i think hagel will be the most controversial and brennan may well be the least controversial, brennan or kerry. i think -- i still don't think his nomination is imperiled. i would say you have it right. what you are now going to have in his confirmation hearing is an extended conversation about drone strikes, how we use them, how should we use them, how should congress be consulted, should the american public be -- it's going to be sort of a broader thematic discussion. and look, the fact is the white house -- if the white house would have preferred mikeis cough break the news two weeks after john brennan rather than three days before his confirmation hearing, absolutely. >> that pesky mikeis cough. you never know when he'll break the stories. susan page, ron widen is the leader of the rebellious group on the senate intelligence committee, not the chair, dianne feinstein who we'll be talking to tomorrow. but ron widen is asking this question and down at the retr
a 25 year long career in the intelligence community and chuck hagel, in vietnam, john kerry a decorated war hero the first three front line folks put forward by the administration are highly experienced and well-regarded professionals who are going to bring, i think, heft and depth and strong leadership to this administration during, as marc has said, during a challenging time. there's a lot of threats to us in the world and i think that obama has put forward a strong a-team here with a lot of experience and i think they're going to do job. >> alisyn: marc, i like that you and simon agree apparently on the incompetence of the administration on leaking something successfully to the media, but i don't know that we should just gloss over it that much. things like that happen all the time. >> oh, sure. >> alisyn: things are leaked for a particular reason that maybe we don't know at first blush, but do you think that this hearing that we're watching on the left side of our screen, he hasn't said a word by the way, just listening, obviously, to the chairman and he hasn't said a single thing.
-- hagel, some of the things he wants to do is to turn this back over to the military so that at least it's not embroiled in secrecy at the very beginning. we don't know anything about it. so at least it will be out many the open a bit which i think is a good thing. >> what was the level, if any, of petraeus in the writing of the book, and what is his reaction after being published? >> well, you know, i interviewed about 110 people for this book including petraeus. one thing about petraeus, he has always been very solicitous of reporters, including me, i have to admit. now, he has two motives, and everybody knows it. one is he kind of likes hanging around with reporters. but second, he sees it as what the military would call information operations or, as the french less euphemistically call it, propaganda. in other words, this is a way of getting the word out. you, and, you know, it works. the thing about petraeus i remember, i mean, i can tell you as a reporter there were four-star generals in the years before petraeus, you know, you'd go meet with them, and you'd come away thinking, god
and leadership. and the second is do you support chuck hagel as secretary of defense and what is your evaluation of the criticisms of american general since world war ii. except for you and general petraeus. [laughter] >> you know, it's painful to read about general is being criticized because a lot of it is correct. you see it, and you say, oh, that's me, i am guilty of that. we had shortcomings of not being strategically enough minded, you know, you get very focused on her job, your tactical part of the mission, not thinking of the big strategic problem that you are trying to solve. that may or may not be a good criticism, but it's certainly worth paying attention to. but it is a useful thing to throw out there. what was the first one? >> okay. >> if chuck hagel will take the job right now, god bless them. whoever will be the secretary of defense, they will go through this constricting budget, they will implement things in combat. implementing it is going to be hard. something is going to come to ahead with iran during this for years, just mathematically. it will be a very difficult for years.
was devoted to becoming an astronaut to the position of secretary of state. chuck hagel is a wonderful nomination. the criticism of him is silly, i believe. people are throwing that around. it is embarrassing. embarrassing to see accusations like that. if you go back to eric miller's book, he talked about the israeli lobby on many occasions. so i don't quite know what the debate is all about. i think that it will disorders go away because it doesn't make a lot of sense. the trees to care about himself, giving adultery a very bad name. but what was obama thinking. but what was obama thinking with intelligence issues that we would have to grapple with. i could not think of a better scenario than having david petraeus at the cia. that's not what he had in mind in 1947. he did not want to put in the hands of military policymakers. what the cia was created for was to challenge military intelligence. the cia has done its job correctly and that is what they have done on things such as arms control or vietnam, for that matter. what needs to be done, and let me just check the time to, we don't
your experience in research, what do you think of the reaction against chuck hagel's being secretary of defense, a man whose clearly reluctant to send soldiers into harm's way having been there himself. >> the question was about the former senator chuck hagel, a man with two purple hearts, shrapnel in his test, and all the controversy over him. without weighing in on him per se. i like the idea of people who served in uniform having a say in policy decisions in which men in uniform and women in uniform are sent into harm's way, as a general thought. i don't have a position on whether he should be secretary of defense. i do think it's interesting, and the last three or four weeks i've wished my show was up and running so we could talk about this at some length, but i think it's interesting, john kerry, chuck hagel, two men with, i think, five purple hearts between them, and both of them, although, they votedded for iraq and afghanistan, can't say they are completely doves, although, maybe john kerry didn't vote for iraq. i can't keep it straight, but in any case, what it does, and we
. senator hagel. later today i'm going to be talking to john brennan. can you give a brief assessment of the two gentle and the capability and the readiness to assume the positions? >> yes, certainly. obviously that's something that the committees now have the opportunity evaluate. but in my view, both of them are outstanding individuals that have a great deal of experience and capability to be able to perform in an outstanding fashion in each of their jobs. senator hagel is someone who, you know, served in the military, worked up here on the hill. understand the issues that are involve there had. i think can be a very effective leader at the pentagon. john brennan is somebody i worked with the at the director of cia and continued to work with in this capacity. i found him to be responsible about how we can effectively conduct operations again al qaeda and against those that would attack this country. he is -- as somebody said, a straight shooter. somebody who, you know, gives you his best opinion, he doesn't play games. he is somebody who i think, you know, can honestly represent the
secretary of defense, chuck hagel, and i am confident and i've expressed that confidence publicly that the men and women of the department of defense will have the kind of advocate they need as the nation emerges from more than a decade of war. lastly, i'm honored to be here, as i said, as a catholic and as a proud graduate of another jesuit institution, santa clara university. my time in the university's undergraduate and law school, in many ways shaped the rest of my life as this education will shape the rest of your lives. i remain deeply thankful to the jesuits for the outstanding education that i received. having gone through seven years of philosophy and syllogisms and theology and cannon law, i have been blessed by all the grace and skepticism that jesuits can give. more importantly, i've been shaped by what i believe is their pragmatic approach to life and to faith and to the issues in general. it was that education and my catholic upbringing, particularly as the son of italian immigrants, that instilled in me the very core principles and values that i carry with me till t
quick questions. thank you for your service and leadership. one, do you support or oppose chuck hagel as secretary of defense? to, what is your violation of thomas ricks criticism of american generals since world war ii except for you and general petraeus? [laughter] >> altaic the second verse. it's painful to read about generals being criticized because a lot of it's correct. you see it and say that's me, i'm guilty of that. we had shortcomings of not being strategically enough minded. you know, you get focused on your job, your tactical part of the mission and not digging the big strategic problem you're trying to solve. one is not firing enough people. we don't fire and not generals. .. you know, from the senate, his time in vietnam is useful because it gives you a context. the most important thing is if he and president obama are a good team, that is what matters. though much worry about his policy positions one way or another because he will be a policy maker. the president's policies will go but the fact that the field that they can be a good team, to me that is the important th
Search Results 0 to 27 of about 28 (some duplicates have been removed)